----a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. -----

Quote

There is ZERO scientific evidence that everything popped into existence.

I agree 100% So................... what does this have to do with evolution.

Oh wait... you think evolution means "things 'poofed' into being"

Again... know what you're talking about before criticizing it.

\

As much as you'd like to think so, evolution has not been proven. Foundations....you must first have a beginning for a point to be made. Evolution starts with life. Ok...fine. How did that life get there? That's where the problem lies. Where did matter come from? Where did the matter form? It's always been there? It's always been floating in the cosmos? Well, yea. That's all we know. Well, that is just impossible. Our minds can't grasp such a concept. Therefore, there is something that we don't understand! By golly, we can't comprehend or explain it! Well, how about the concept of God? It's the same as your faith in the unknown. Why can't the "foundations" be taught in school?

Proof is for math. Sciene is about evidence. Evidence for evolution has been found over and over.

Quote

Foundations....you must first have a beginning for a point to be made. Evolution starts with life.

That's......oversimplifying it quite a bit.

Quote

Ok...fine. How did that life get there? That's where the problem lies.

You're asking a question unrelated to evolution.

Plus, this is an argument from ignorance.

Quote

Where did matter come from? Where did the matter form? It's always been there? It's always been floating in the cosmos?

On their own, these are good questions. But in this context, they've become an argument from ignorance. Again; this is unrelated to the subject of evolution.

Quote

Well, yea. That's all we know. Well, that is just impossible. Our minds can't grasp such a concept. Therefore, there is something that we don't understand!

Not only is this an argument from ignorance, it's arguing from incredulity. Just because we don't have all the details, it does not make an idea invalid.

Quote

By golly, we can't comprehend or explain it! Well, how about the concept of God? It's the same as your faith in the unknown.

Correction: you mean you can't comprehend things. In another thread, I asked for your thoughts on the "god of the gaps" concepts. I never got a reply on it. Whatever the case, I can tell you LOVE placing 'god' in the gaps of your knowledge.

Using that logic shouldn't we throw all scientific theories out the window? Theory of relativity? Theory of gravity? Germ theory? How did the gravity get there? Where did the germs come from? They can't explain everything about everything. Why do you feel this is a burden that only evolutionary theory must bear?

Evolutionary theory sufficiently explains what it actually pertains to - biodiversity. Demanding that it must go above and beyond is nothing more than a case of special pleading.

Lots of "non-science" is taught in school. Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition.

Why do you support the idea of religious instruction supplanting fact based learning?

There is no mention of Christianity in Creationism. And evolution is NOT fact based. It's a theory. There is ZERO scientific evidence that everything popped into existence.

Well, really you are partly correct, there is no mention of Christianity necessary in creationism. There are many, many, creation myths. However the majority of religious folks in this country are Christians, so of course which god did it is theirs. However, as spelled out in the OP, the ID movement is being put forth by Christians as part of the Wedge. So really you do know where it is coming from and so this is dishonesty on your part.

Evolution is fact based, and it really is time for you to start at the beginning, but at the beginning of evolution not cosmogony or abiogenesis. You have had this explained to you more than once and so you either have ignored the information, don't believe it, haven't checked it out from a source that you can trust, or, you are being dishonest. I think you are being dishonest. At the very least you are lying to yourself.

You still haven't understood the difference between facts and theory. I have offered to go through all this with you several times now, and you have declined. Therefore, you are wasting our time and I withdraw my offer to step you through it. You have no desire to learn, only to ridicule that which you do not understand. You are the typical lost creationist we see here every day.

Of course, you may not be dishonest. It could be that you are incredibly stupid. Or, fundamentally ill.

From MonkeyPedia:Fundamentally IllFundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against rational thought, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture such as science. In particular evolution.

The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. A fundamentally Ill person can never be swayed regardless of any facts or theories they are presented with. Sadly, there is no hope for these persons as there is no known cure.

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

What is it about evolution that makes you afraid? Why do you accept other scientific facts, but not this one?

For years, people have had to move on from one outdated world view to the more current, corrected one. The planet is not flat. Thor does not make thunder. Other worlds do exist.

Science is a tool for understanding the world around us. It does not care about your beliefs, nor mine. It is non-sentient, with no agenda, save to answer questions about how things work. And, one of the beauties of it is that it requires no faith to work. It works whether you believe it, or not. If you choose to dismiss all the evidence and rationale for any science, it doesn't care. It still works.

Are you such a narcissist that you believe science has the hidden agenda to disprove your god? To make your god irrelevant? I tell you, it does not. And why would it? To what end?

Why would science be out to disprove your god? What happens? According to you, we're in a "fallen state" anyway. Why would this make it worse? And, moreover, why would you, personally, care? Wouldn't all this have the effect of speeding toward the rapture anyway? And, isn't that a good thing for you?

Infectious diseases strike backThe golden age of antibiotics proved to be a short-lived one. During the past few decades, many strains of bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics. An example of this is Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the bacteria that causes gonorrhea, shown at right. In the 1960s penicillin and ampicillin were able to control most cases of gonorrhea. Today, more than 24 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in the U.S. are resistant to at least one antibiotic, and 98 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in Southeast Asia are resistant to penicillin.1 Infectious bacteria are much harder to control than their predecessors were ten or twenty years ago.

Doctors miss the "good old days," when the antibiotics they prescribed consistently cured their patients. However, evolutionary theory suggests some specific tactics to help slow the rate at which bacteria become resistant to our drugs.

Or maybe only bacteria evolves and every other living thing on this planet is frozen in time. Evolution is a proven fact. Creationism/ID is religion driven nonesense that exists for the sole purpose of giving people who should know better the idea that humans have some special position in the scheme of things that is denied to every other species on the planet.

Logged

"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne

If Adam and Eve were not real people, then Original Sin never existed, and so there was no reason for Jesus to come down and "save" us.

I can't recall ever seeing any kind of argument against this from any xian, ever.

Well of course they wouldn't say it: "I object to evolution not because it isn't true, but because my faith desperately needs it not to be true!"

Who would actually admit that? But it's still true. According to a lot of Christian theology, the Fall is what sets the stage for the rest of their religion. It's the reason for Jesus, for human imperfection, for the end of the world, all that jazz.

What is the mechanism of evolution? Heritability, natural selection and mutation….and lots of time. Couldn’t be a better recipe for life!

Evolution needs lots of time? (chuckle) Where's the evolution in bacteria and fruit flies? The students are still studying the same STATIC bacterial genus and species as they where 100+ years ago. Again, "evolution" produces no intermediate species. We all are waiting for the intermediate species to show up ANYWHERE! 7 BILLION people on earth and WHERE ohWHERE are the intermediate human-like species?

"Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long ___multigenerational__(there goes the "time" theory) studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don’t evolve—they just die."

Written by a man who attended a low-ranked college. Has only worked at Christian Institutions. Done no research and published no papers that I can see evidence of and the sources are either irrelevant or over thirty years out of date.

What was this supposed to prove again?

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

qwan_lee: Congratulations, you have successfully managed to prove that you are no better at understanding evolution than anyone else who uses cherry-picked sources.

The link you provided is just a copy-paste of the same article posted on ICR, which to be blunt is about as unimpressive as it gets as a source. They have a vested interest in finding anything they can to discredit evolution, regardless of how finely they have to search and even if other parts of the article, or even the paragraph, contradict those conclusions. Third, the conclusion the article draws is not based on any research that the writer himself performed, but simply a very narrow interpretation of a handful of studies that doesn't even attempt to give the whole picture.

By the way, one of the studies mentioned was Lenski's groundbreaking study which showed a dramatic evolutionary change in a strain of E.coli, namely the ability to metabolize a new kind of nutrient that normal E.coli cannot use[1]. Yes, the very same one which your article claims the researchers only found "the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative".

Methinks that the writer of your article either misread the study, or deliberately wrote it to deceive people into thinking it was valid because it referred to actual studies.

Written by a man who attended a low-ranked college. Has only worked at Christian Institutions. Done no research and published no papers that I can see evidence of and the sources are either irrelevant or over thirty years out of date.

What was this supposed to prove again?

Do you realize what a blatantly stupid reply that is? How deserving of a hard punch to your face that is?! Listen to yourself:

An evolutionist with little eductation points out to a creationist that his use of a so called ancient rock containing a spark plug was refuted many years ago. The creationist simply replies:

"Written by a man who attended a low-ranked college. Has only worked at Christian Institutions. Done no research and published no papers that I can see evidence of and the sources are either irrelevant or over thirty years out of date.

What was this supposed to prove again?"

Really hypocrite? Really? Isn't that awesome how atheists and Bible-haters are such hypocrites? To a logical fallacy versed atheist, they would point out that your reply is that of a weasel. A person who ignored the evidence and fobs it off, and uses ad hominem attacks and mere mocking to avoid the issue.

Tell me how much education did the first scientist have, or how much education did the first person have, how many credentials, who did a scientific experiment? How NEW did his research need to be to be of value or still worth reading, or believable? So, using your stupid reasoning, your hypocrite's reasoning, your damned if they do damned if they don't reasoning, I can just dismiss anything because, "that's so old." Reminds of childish replies teens make when someone brings up the Bible to them in a good light, "outdated" "that's just an old book".

And wow, lol, "a low-ranked college". You must be a 15 year old, probably with narcissism disorder to have said such an arrogant and immature thing. "Nanny nanny I go to Harvard you went to some Christian low ranked stuff, nanny nanny I won't listen I can't believe you no one should listen cuz ur poor and ur colleges didn't get high back pat approvals from my friend evolutionists. And only evolutionists (Bible-deniers) can be called objective and believed well, you Christians can't, nanny nanny low-ranked colleged."

What a face-punch deserving remark you've made, multiple face-punches. Study logical fallacies, that way you might avoid being such a massive idiot and flame-baiting troll. Here's a start: http://eternian.wordpress.com

chosenbygrace: Do you realize just how foolish your own response was? The credentials of the person who wrote that article matter, especially since he was caught in what is at best a fairly ridiculous error about one of the studies he quoted, but what is much more probably a deliberate deception about it. He didn't do his own research, he simply cited a couple of examples about other people's research, and not even particularly good ones given the one example I already cited. So for all of your ranting about Alzael's response, he did have a good point, which went completely by your head.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

To a logical fallacy versed atheist, they would point out that your reply is that of a weasel. A person who ignored the evidence and fobs it off, and uses ad hominem attacks and mere mocking to avoid the issue.

I did not use an ad hominem, however. Your previously quoted statement was an ad hominem, but not anything that I said. Although once again you free to actually demonstrate otherwise. Just to help you out, in order to prove an ad hominem you will have to demonstrate that the points I made have no relevance other than to serve as an attack on his character. I look forward to seeing how you argue that pointing out the man has done no scientific research and is using information outdated by over three decades has no relevance.

Evidence no, but a valid question. What was that evidence supposed to prove? It would not have been convincing to anyone who thought about it logically for more than a few seconds. I would also point out that this qualifies as another ad hominem on your part since you have yet to address anything I actually said with a counterargument.

Tell me how much education did the first scientist have, or how much education did the first person have, how many credentials, who did a scientific experiment?

Irrelevant. We're way past the first scientist. Obviously the first scientist had little education because he was the first. Just as obviously almost everything he said was most likely wrong. The writer of the article, however, does not have the excuse of not having any prior knowledge to go by. Brian Thomas has entire libraries and exobites upon exobites of information available to him. He just made a conscious choice to ignore it.

your damned if they do damned if they don't reasoning, I can just dismiss anything because, "that's so old." Reminds of childish replies teens make when someone brings up the Bible to them in a good light, "outdated" "that's just an old book".

No, you can dismiss it because it's been replaced with new information that is better supported. That is what a rational person does. When new information is provided they study it and, if properly evidenced, assimilate it. Clinging to old information that is proven wrong, but supports your preconceptions, is what fools, liars, and the incompetent do.

And wow, lol, "a low-ranked college". You must be a 15 year old, probably with narcissism disorder to have said such an arrogant and immature thing. "Nanny nanny I go to Harvard you went to some Christian low ranked stuff, nanny nanny I won't listen I can't believe you no one should listen cuz ur poor and ur colleges didn't get high back pat approvals from my friend evolutionists. And only evolutionists (Bible-deniers) can be called objective and believed well, you Christians can't, nanny nanny low-ranked colleged."

It goes directly to his credentials. There is a reason colleges like his are given low-ranks. Also this really has no bearing on anything. This entire paragraph is merely a sad attempt at a slight because you obviously lack the ability to form an actual argument to oppose what's been said.

What a face-punch deserving remark you've made, multiple face-punches. Study logical fallacies, that way you might avoid being such a massive idiot and flame-baiting troll. Here's a start: http://eternian.wordpress.com

I do know logical fallacies. Shall I count how many you've made so far?

You know, Chosen, I don't mind someone being insulting. But at least don't be boring. At least manage to form a single legitimate argument, as opposed to the collection of intellectual flotsam that you've chosen to post for your first time. If you can't even get through more than two sentences without resorting to an ad hominem then you're just going to get trounced by everyone here, who by all indications are clearly of a vastly superior intelligence in comparison to you. Which will not be very amusing to watch. So please, be insulting if you want, but at least be interesting.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Oh and, 2009 and 2010 are out of date you liar? What an evil liar you are. Why are you so evil? God hater.

Given this is the only new thing you wrote (seriously, did you think other people wouldn't notice that you copy-pasted the rest from your previous reply?), I'll point out again that the study quoted was quoted incorrectly and probably deceptively. It cites a groundbreaking study by Lenski which demonstrably proves a dramatic evolutionary change in E.coli bacteria, the ability to metabolize citrine, which is one of the key factors which differentiates E.coli from other bacteria. Yet the article that qwan_lee linked claimed otherwise, that the E.coli bacterium was hobbled by mutations and had suffered only deleterious changes. That is not just a mistake, that's a flat contradiction between what the study actually says and what the author of that article claims it does. Therefore, the credentials of the author matter and Alzael has a valid point in bringing them up and questioning them.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I wanted to take this opportunity to welcome chosenbygrace and quan lee to the forums.

I look forward to learning all about how the earth became populated with so many different breeds and species in the few thousand years since all of the animals marched off Noah's Ark. I'm also really interested in learning about how the human beings on earth became so racially diverse in the absence of the process of natural selection.

I also hope to learn more about the world-wide conspiracy of scientists who have worked tirelessly to propagate falsehoods over so many generations.

I'm also really excited to learn why God decided to modify joebbowers' bedbugs. Actually, I'd like a little clarification about why God's perfect design includes bedbugs in the first place.

Look you idiots, fruit flies are in baltic amber, dated 30 millions years old and older, and there is no apparent change. How many generations of fruit flies have passed by since 38 million years ago, yet you're whining about studies done since 1920 and onward showing no evolution? Truly stupid. "Living fossils" are always being found, but you dummies aren't interested in cataloging them all because it makes you look like the liars you are every time another is found.

You cannot actually spot evolution happening, or not, in a test tube environment.

I might have a new mutation that enables me to dive to 500m, but I will never know, until I do it. We simply don't have the technology to determine whether something is NOT evolving, if we don't test the organisms in every possible way, during the breeding. The power of bacterial evolution is NOT that they can multiply rapidly in a test tube, but that they can be exposed to a multitude of new environments if they are in the wild.

It's easy to see whether a mutant gene causes ill-effects, because the organism fails to thrive, or has toes missing. In the case of the bacteria: they were exposed to mutagens and chemicals designed to deform them. This was done without any attempts to identify any new niches that they may have been inadvertently adapting to. In this case, they were only adapting to potent mutagens, which was not possible in that time span. To adapt to a powerful, penetrating mutagen may require a new type of membrane - something that would take a million years to develop.

The fruit flies possibly cannot live any longer, no matter how much you push them. The experiment was likely done to give the researchers some ideas on how to extend human life, not to prove evolution. As such, they were only doing one test selection - that of lifespan. They proved that you cannot breed an older fruit-fly in 20 years. That does not mean that you cannot breed an older cat, or an older other type of fly. It also does not mean that the fruit flies never evolved a capacity for something else, and the researchers didn't notice. They were only looking for longevity. This put massive blinkers on the experiment.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Fruit flies may have very stable genetics, which made them inappropriate for the experiment. Just because you can't force one species in 20 years, does not mean you can't force them in 20,000 years, which is the time nature has available. Longer life is a large leap, and limits most species.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 07:55:45 AM by Add Homonym »

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.